Planetside 2: High Graphics or High Frames per Second? - Page 7

SixShooter · 2012-08-21, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by MrSilentF

This thread is stupid. All I see in here is people with disposable incomes who can spend that type of money on high powered machines. What about the common man with his above average PC or average PC? Does anyone care about them?

Many of the potential planetside 2 players have machines that play Planetside very well. However, Planetside2 so far has been lagtastic on many machines I've heard from so far

So the real question is, does Planetside staff care more about a bigger playerbase or prettier graphics? Seeing how this is Sony, I don't see it going towards playerbase as they are generally terrible when it comes to people. I hate to badmouth a great company but that is one of it's major flaws; it does not care much about it's consumer

Where was I going with this?

Disposable income

Thats some funny shit man

Predemption · 2012-08-21, 05:17 PM

I used to play call of duty on my old laptop at 15FPS (with everything on it's lowest) and I don't know how I did it. Nowadays if my FPS goes below 45 it is immediately noticeable and makes a huge difference on my performance. That being said, I usually keep my FPS to around 60.

Forsaken One · 2012-08-21, 05:24 PM

I like both honestly and it makes me pissed when newer games are having shitter graphics yet take MORE power to run.

Crysis 1 should be the standard. Great graphics, semi low hardware needed. Crysis one has proven it can be done.

So how the heck are newer games coming out with less then Crysis level impressive graphics yet take twice or more the minimum requirements to run decently?

You can't even say that its because tech is advancing Its honestly a very big downgrade to require more power for less end result.

Meriv · 2012-08-21, 05:41 PM

IMO i don't think they will go for great graphic performance, remember it is a F2P ,bigger the playerbase /more succesfull it is. IDK how it works but it could have a great range of variation beetween the lowest and the higher setting (that would be the best) but i don't think they are willing to cut out a lot of players (possibles buyers) in exchange of perfect graphics.

lets take in consideration the most successful F2P out there, like LOL, WOT, etc..etc.. they don't have amazing graphics soo i think they will try to follow that model.

fb III IX ca IV · 2012-08-21, 05:53 PM

I like what RAGE does, it dynamically adjusts the graphics settings until the game runs right at 60 FPS, if you go into a more resource intensive section, it will lower the settings to maintain the 60 FPS.

sgtbjack · 2012-08-21, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by fb III IX ca IV

I like what RAGE does, it dynamically adjusts the graphics settings until the game runs right at 60 FPS, if you go into a more resource intensive section, it will lower the settings to maintain the 60 FPS.

Thats pretty highspeed. I didn't know that.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-08-21, 10:08 PM

I require a constant 60 FPS. That's restricted by my monitor and biology. I have a sneaking suspicion that monitor manufacturers chose 60 FPS for a reason.

After 60 FPS is locked in, then the next thing is maximum draw distance and to see the enemy before they see me. Anything that helps me see up to the horizon is my number 2 priority.

Anything after that is pretty. The mesh on the VS uniforms, bulletholes, smoke, whatever. All of it is optional.

MaxDamage · 2012-08-21, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by StumpyTheOzzie

I require a constant 60 FPS. That's restricted by my monitor and biology. I have a sneaking suspicion that monitor manufacturers chose 60 FPS for a reason.

After 60 FPS is locked in, then the next thing is maximum draw distance and to see the enemy before they see me. Anything that helps me see up to the horizon is my number 2 priority.

Anything after that is pretty. The mesh on the VS uniforms, bulletholes, smoke, whatever. All of it is optional.

The 60fps 'biology' claim is a vague thing, the human eye can register the difference between 120 and 60 very easily (as any pro Quake III Arena player can happily tell you), as we do not simply register 'frames' with our eyes.

There is no 'vertical sync' interface between our eyes and monitors.

FortySe7en · 2012-08-21, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by MaxDamage

The 60fps 'biology' claim is a vague thing, the human eye can register the difference between 120 and 60 very easily (as any pro Quake III Arena player can happily tell you), as we do not simply register 'frames' with our eyes.

There is no 'vertical sync' interface between our eyes and monitors.

No Q3A "pro" would have ever made this statement.

The only difference FPS made in quake was allowing you to jump further and crouch faster. It had absolutely zero to do with being able to visually notice a difference in framerate.

But please, go on.

MaxDamage · 2012-08-21, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by FortySe7en

No Q3A "pro" would have ever made this statement.

The only difference FPS made in quake was allowing you to jump further and crouch faster. It had absolutely zero to do with being able to visually notice a difference in framerate.

But please, go on.

Wrong.
That counter argument is as old as, well, Quake III Arena.

We who actually experienced the difference rather than simply throwing your completely ignorant and inexperienced opinion around, know better.

Also the 60fps thing was debunked by actual scientists, a bloody long time ago. It's just old wives tales that prolongue this lie that the eye can only somehow see EXACTLY 60 FPS OR LESS.

This isn't about jumping, the frame lock at 120 was indeed used for enhancing movement and jumping (as if you needed to link me to what I already knew), 120 is far more comfortable and easy on the eye, reducing strain and far smoother.

I realise console gen folk and some hardware-pride clowns take all of this personally as an attack on their epeen for their machine not running everything beyond 60fps. 60fps became the norm because it was more realistically attainable as an ideal for developers, technology and typical flatscreens. Nothing to do with science, bud.

With the advent of 120Hz monitors becoming more affordable (hopefully cheap enough for your price range), you too will notice the difference and eat your hat.

Your friendly neighbourhood FPS (ex)pro. :]

Pancake · 2012-08-22, 12:21 AM

BOTH

GLaDOS · 2012-08-22, 01:03 AM

With any game, I just hope and pray that it'll run on my computer. And if it does, then I turn everything down so it's playable, usually around 30 FPS, but less for more modern games like Tribes Ascend. I'm just happy I can play them.

FortySe7en · 2012-08-22, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by MaxDamage

Your friendly neighbourhood FPS (ex)pro. :]

Pics or it didn't happen

lawnmower · 2012-08-22, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

People say this, but its never true, or we would still be playing MUDS. FPS in particular, drive discrete video game hardware.

lol what

Originally Posted by FortySe7en

No Q3A "pro" would have ever made this statement.

The only difference FPS made in quake was allowing you to jump further and crouch faster. It had absolutely zero to do with being able to visually notice a difference in framerate.

But please, go on.

sounds liek you know what every quakepro would say. please, go on

Swatmat · 2012-08-23, 05:17 AM

to those that say you cant tell between 30 and 60, im sorry you just can 30 is jumpy and slow, 60 is smooth, 120 is even better but the noticeable difference is much smaller compared to 30-60.

and in regard to high fps or high graphics fps is more important as you can react quicker and don't get slowdown when you need that situational awareness. however you can have both just dont play on a standard pc you buy from pc world, if you want a decent gaming experience buy custom made or build it yourself, im not talking 5000 dollars/pounds/euros but for the price you can buy a pc from pc world you can actually get a much more powerful one if you buy the parts